Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

F5 Shape Security vs Kount comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 12, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

F5 Shape Security
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Bot Management (2nd)
Kount
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
13th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of F5 Shape Security is 1.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kount is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

Nikolay Dimitrov - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to configure and blocks bot attacks for web users
The solution is deployed on the F5 cloud. The solution's real-time analytics help you see what has been blocked. It helps to see whether the attack category was an automation attack or a fake browser. F5 Shape Security has a normal dashboard. We are doing F5 Shape Security migrations for 30 customers. F5 Shape Security uses Javascript. For a lot of competitors, the Javascript can be reverse-engineered by attackers to bypass the protection. F5 Shape Security has machine learning authentication of the Java script. If you had hacked it, the encryption would have been changed. It's really hard for attackers to reverse engineer the F5 Shape Security JavaScript. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Chris Zappato - PeerSpot reviewer
Features a large database of fraud signals and indicators to stop fraud in its tracks
At my old company, I used to use a tool called Sift. It's another great tool, but I prefer Kount. The major differences between the two solutions are how they're laid out and how fast you can gather as much information as possible. I personally prefer Kount — that's my personal preference. I've worked with both platforms for many years. I personally prefer Kount for the way that they display information and for the variety and flexibility they offer when it comes to the rules — from very simple to very complex. Kount is better designed for catching fraud, detecting fraud, and preventing fraud. Sift is also great; you will not go wrong if you go with Sift, but I personally prefer Kount.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"F5 Shape Security's most valuable feature is performance."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ease of configuration."
"The initial setup was absolutely straightforward. Within a week I was fully working."
"It's an in-depth, all-in-one solution."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to create your own ruleset and edit it whenever you want. Their reporting functionality is very helpful. It's really robust."
 

Cons

"I want the solution's custom exclusion rules to be more granular."
"The tool's price is high."
"They could do a little bit better with chargeback management. There are other solutions out there that I've heard about, like Accertify that have a better chargeback platform where they're integrated more with the banks or in terms of how the workflow is and how you can respond to chargebacks."
"The rule system and automation could be expanded a little bit more."
"The time that is taken to go to Kount and come back should be in the order of around 100 milliseconds or less. And our context was taking around 200 to 300 milliseconds. We didn't want the extra load of 100 milliseconds to happen, so if the two rounds of stability could be cut to one, that would be very helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is moderately priced."
"I think the pricing is great — I think it's totally worth what they're charging because the benefits are great."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
32%
Healthcare Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Retailer
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What makes automation distinct as an attack vector?
An aspect that sets automation apart as an attack vector is its ability to mimic legitimate user behavior and evade traditional security measures. Automated attacks can simulate human-like interact...
How does F5 Shape Security’s system work? What are its components?
One key component is the Shape Defense Engine. It sends telemetry to the Shape AI Cloud, a highly secure data system where machine learning algorithms analyze the data to detect patterns of automat...
Can F5 Shape Security protect both our web and mobile applications? Are there any specific features for mobile app protection?
F5 Shape Security can protect web apps as well. It’s a bit complicated, but goes something like this: The platform employs a JavaScript-based collection of client signals to gather data on user beh...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Shape Security
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Wells Fargo, Loblaw, JetBlue, Zoosk
CD Baby, Crate & Barrel, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Brands, Hydrobuilder, Jagex, JOANN Fabric & Crafts, Leatherman, Micro Center, Staples, The Iconic, The Source, The Vitamin Shoppe, TickPick and WebJet.
Find out what your peers are saying about F5 Shape Security vs. Kount and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.